Aligning anti-bribery and ‘failure to prevent’ fraud controls: avoiding duplication while strengthening systems
GoodBlog | read time: 4 min
Published: 20 February 2026
Recent developments in UK economic crime legislation have prompted many organisations to re-examine how fraud prevention sits within their existing compliance frameworks. For businesses that have already invested heavily in anti-bribery and corruption (ABC) controls in response to the Bribery Act, and that are now in scope of the failure to prevent fraud offence under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA), an important question is raised: are existing systems sufficient, or does the failure to prevent fraud offence require a separate and distinct response?
In many cases, organisations are likely to have strong foundations in place to address their ABC risks. Such governance structures, risk management processes and financial controls often provide meaningful protection against certain types of fraud. Many organisations will also be familiar with the ‘failure to prevent’ offence in respect of anti-bribery and corruption, the defence to which is to show that an organisation has adequate prevention procedures are in place.
For fraud, which is not of itself a new corporate risk, organisations now need to adopt the ‘failure to prevent’ approach with a focus on fraud that benefits the company. This is because organisations will now be liable for failing to prevent fraud from which they benefit (‘outward fraud’) unless they can demonstrate that they have ‘reasonable’ fraud prevention procedures in place.
For many organisations this represents an expansion of compliance scope rather than an entirely new category of risk. The challenge therefore is for organisations to adopt a proportionate response which assesses whether their existing compliance framework sufficiently mitigates outward fraud risks, and whether additional controls are necessary. Organisations will likely need to both align existing controls and establish new ones to address the broad range of fraud offences covered by the ECCTA.
Assessing Existing Compliance Frameworks
The ‘failure to prevent’ fraud offence requires organisations to extend their procedures beyond traditional fraud, such as financial crime, to include activities that may benefit the organisation, including misleading ESG reporting and greenwashing. Fraud prevention cannot be considered in isolation; it must operate alongside existing obligations relating to bribery, corruption, financial reporting, and governance. The key question is how these frameworks function together in practice.
In some organisations, fraud and bribery controls have evolved separately, reflecting differing legal drivers, operational priorities, and ownership structures. While natural in growing organisations, this can result in overlapping controls in some areas and gaps in others, with accountability spread across multiple functions. Effective fraud prevention begins with understanding how existing frameworks work together and ensuring responsibilities are clearly defined.
Shared Principles, Different Risks
Government guidance on the ‘failure to prevent’ fraud offence closely mirrors the six principles underpinning the Bribery Act, covering top-level commitment, risk assessment, proportionate procedures, due diligence, communication and training, and monitoring. For organisations with established ABC programmes, these principles will already be embedded in governance and compliance processes.
However, ‘failure to prevent’ fraud risks are broader in scope than those for bribery. Bribery often arises in identifiable transactional contexts, such as third-party relationships, procurement, or interactions with public officials. By contrast, outward fraud risks can emerge across a wider range of activities, including non-financial reporting and investor relations. This requires an understanding of how the organisation operates in practice and how controls function across all business areas.
Using Existing Anti-Bribery Controls for Fraud Prevention
Existing governance, escalation, and oversight mechanisms can be adapted to cover outward fraud risks. Risk assessment methodologies can be adapted to consider fraud alongside bribery and corruption exposure, and training programmes addressing ethical conduct, conflicts of interest, and third-party risk can support both objectives.
Financial and operational controls—approvals processes, segregation of duties, transaction monitoring, and audit oversight—remain central. Reviewing these controls ensures they are effective and proportionate without unnecessary duplication. The goal is to identify where existing systems already provide protection and where enhancements are needed.
Aligning Anti-Fraud and Anti-Bribery Controls
Shared principles offer opportunities to align fraud and anti-bribery programmes:
- Governance and oversight: Economic crime risks can be considered holistically.
- Risk assessment: Fraud risks can be incorporated into existing frameworks.
- Training: Ethical decision-making, third-party risk, and escalation procedures can address overlapping areas.
Alignment clarifies responsibilities, enables consistent risk assessment, and leverages existing compliance investments. Coherent and proportionate controls also strengthen defensibility, demonstrating that reasonable procedures are in place.
When Separate Fraud Controls Are Needed
Some fraud risks require distinct controls. Outward fraud may need new monitoring processes, revised governance, or enhanced oversight of commercial activities, often outside traditional compliance functions. Alignment does not imply uniformity—some risks can use existing controls, while others require targeted measures. Clear ownership and accountability remain critical.
Strengthening Fraud Prevention
A structured approach begins with assessing existing ABC controls against the six principles of the Government Guidance to identify coverage gaps. Focus should be on outward fraud risks and areas where ownership is unclear. Targeted enhancements strengthen oversight and ensure effective implementation, avoiding duplication while improving clarity, accountability, and resilience.
The objective is not to merge systems unnecessarily but to ensure that compliance programmes reflect real organisational risks and operate coherently across functions.
How GoodCorporation can help align fraud and bribery controls
GoodCorporation helps organisations respond to the ‘failure to prevent’ fraud offence by strengthening and extending existing compliance frameworks in a practical and proportionate way.
Using our Framework on Preventing Fraud, we assess governance, risk management and control arrangements against the six principles, identifying where procedures already mitigate fraud risks and where gaps exist, particularly in relation to outward fraud risks including ESG and greenwashing exposures.
We then support organisations in clarifying ownership, enhancing oversight and designing controls that reflect operational realities while integrating with existing anti-bribery and compliance programmes. This enables companies to build on what they already have, extend fraud prevention beyond traditional fraud and demonstrate reasonable procedures that are robust, proportionate and defensible.
